Read a little. Learn a lot. • Tightly-written news, views and stuff • Follow us on TwitterBe a Facebook FanTumble us!

29 Apr 2010 10:17


Tech: Quick analysis of Steve Jobs’ massive post on Adobe Flash

  • Key point: It’s not getting on the iPhone due to technology reasons. Steve Jobs’ 1,657-word manifesto on Flash is a really interesting document on the nature of one of Silicon Valley’s biggest fights. We don’t think Jobs has ever been this open. We’d like to see him keep this up in the future. It really makes his points seem reasonable. Here’s a summary that’s about a fifth of the size.

First: Let’s get this out of the way

  • no Steve doesn’t mention the
    kerfuffle between Apple and Gizmodo over the leaked iPhone
  • no Flash won’t be getting on the
    iPhone anytime soon, so lose
    those dreams now, guys

Cutting his six points to three

  • one Flash is a closed, proprietary standard, and Apple’s goals for the Web are to use open standards such as HTML5. And lots of sites use these already.
  • two Flash is another thing that has to run on a device that needs to be as lightweight as possible. This affects phone performance as well as battery life.
  • three Flash is a technology that’s designed for PCs, not touchscreens. Plus, Adobe has been bad about supporting our platforms in the past, and could repeat here.

Key quote from his Steveness

  • Flash was created during the PC era – for PCs and mice. Flash is a successful business for Adobe, and we can understand why they want to push it beyond PCs. But the mobile era is about low power devices, touch interfaces and open web standards – all areas where Flash falls short.
  • Steve Jobs • Sticking the dagger into the company’s technology. His main point? Flash isn’t a platform designed for mobile phones, and as he’s trying to push for the strongest app development on the platform he can, he wants to avoid putting a technology on his phones that adds one more thing to the load. But he’s clear that it’s not because of competitive reasons, like everyone thinks it is. We’re still not convinced. source

05 Apr 2010 16:52


Politics: Blog-blabber: We’re shorter than both The Wrap and Newser

  • long Sharon Waxman of The Wrap complains about Newser summarizing her articles with scant credit (804 words).
  • short Michael Wolff’s Newser then summarizes her complaints in a much more concise format (133 words).
  • shorter We see the two of
    them whining about attribution and decide
    to one-up both of them (59 words). source